Cargo & Industry fixes for 1.06

[Stoker]

I have been giving some thought to my proposed fix for the Crystals weirdness. The 1.06 developers had this cargo named as "Sand" right up until the very last moment and then went with "Crystals" (Whatever that is supposed to mean). I would also really like to make the Cement (Concrete) production chain make more sense, but it is entwined in so many scenarios I think this might not work out. This morning I am thinking that perhaps the best fix for these two issues that will leave all existing production chains intact is to rename Crystals to Silica. This will make sense as the input in the Electronics recipe, and would allow another sensible use for this cargo, namely a Glassworks that would have a recipe of Silica+Coal=Goods. This would provide an early era use for Silica (Crystals) In this case I would leave the weird Concrete production chain alone, with maybe the only change being to switch the car type for Concrete to a hopper. I am going from memory here, but I think there is only an open hopper in the game? Ideally Concrete (Cement) would be carried in a covered hopper. Something I am certain of is that carrying it in liquid form in a tanker is completely ridiculous.

Electrons are cheap, so I think I will "pencil in" these changes in the lists at the beginning of the thread to see how I like them. Any input is appreciated...

[Blackhawk]

It has been awhile since I looked through the old 1.06 notes, so I didn't realize crystals were originally sand. Sand seems like it would have been a better choice to go with. While Crystals seems to imply something like quartz, but without adding another industry like a jewelry factory which could have taken advantage of quartz in 1.06, it seemed to overall be a dead end cargo. While a better overhaul would be nice, in the effort to keep things backwards compatible, Silica seems to be an adequate solution.

As far as I know, you are correct in that RT3 does not have a covered hopper car. RT2 had one and it was about half the size of the coal/iron hoppers. That said, I'm surprised they dropped cement from RT2 to RT3.

[RulerofRails]

Silica will do for me too. I have been thinking about new cargoes that would make sense and create uses for the products available. I had an idea: Shoes made from Rubber and Hides in early years. Could always incorporate Plastic in later years. I know it is quite specific. If not a cargo, what about as an industry?

[Stoker]

I agree about Canned Foods not quite fitting things like Cheese as well as PackagedFoods would. Something I did not mention in that previous post is that I checked this morning and the limit on cargo name length (so that they appear correctly in the cargo map) is 11 characters. CannedFoods or Canned Food fits. How does PackageFood sound? Sounds a bit odd to me. Guess I should go look at a Thesaurus to get some ideas, maybe there is a better term we are overlooking.

@ RoR: I will consider an additional industry for Rubber. A shoe Factory with a recipe: Rubber+Textiles=Goods (or 2 goods) might work, and then a maybe a later recipe including plastic. We can make a few more industries, but the cargoes are limited to adding a maximum of one, and maybe none. I need to experiment with this before I know for sure.

Edit to add: After thinking about the production for a Shoe Factory for a few minutes it might be better to use a recipe using two first tier cargoes, like : Rubber+Hides(Dye)=Goods.

P.S: The renaming of the cargoes is done very simply through the ".lng" file contained in the Data/Language folder in your RT3 installation. If you want to test out some names just make a copy of the original file so you have a backup, and then open the .lng with any Wordpad, Notepad, etc. , change any names you want, then save it. If you want "Livestock" to appear as "Wombats" you can do that. Just remember to not disturb the "Call Number" preceding the name or the quotations before and after names, and that 11 characters is the limit for cargo names to appear correctly in the game. That number prefix is what the game engine looks at when looking for what to display for all of the different assets in the game. Also, you must close the game /do changes/save/re open game for the new names to appear. The names for all original assets appear in lines # 3200- 3400 and those added with 1.06 are at the bottom, in the 4400 range.

[Stoker]

Here is a peek at what the proposed new names look like in the game.



New icons will come later after all changes are nailed down.

[Gumboots]

...............usually as X Gigawatts of electricity enables Electric Locomotives or a price break for them..................

Oh well, in that case the thing is totally unnecessary.

Regarding names suggested by RoR: I am not keen on the Condiments name. Coffee and Tea are Condiments? No. Short two word names will fit, it has to do with the letter count, not whether there are two words or one. As for Food, I am actually considering calling it CannedFood. The name needs to describe the fact that this cargo has been processed and packaged . Please keep any ideas about cargo names and industries coming. I have shot down many dozens of my own ideas, so don't let that discourage you.

Coffee should be under Essential Nutrients. This could also cover alcohol and meat.

Ok seriously: what Blackhawk said about the canned/packaged dichotomy. And please, it you are going to use two words use two words. This is not, or shouldn't be, txtspk. If it wont fit in English, find another name that will fit (may also pay to bear in mind that it doesn't have to only fit in English).

[Gumboots]

I have been giving some thought to my proposed fix for the Crystals weirdness. The 1.06 developers had this cargo named as "Sand" right up until the very last moment and then went with "Crystals" (Whatever that is supposed to mean).

Maybe they were thinking of shipping crystal meth. Who knows? Apparently it can be a very profitable cargo.

I would also really like to make the Cement (Concrete) production chain make more sense, but it is entwined in so many scenarios I think this might not work out. This morning I am thinking that perhaps the best fix for these two issues that will leave all existing production chains intact is to rename Crystals to Silica. This will make sense as the input in the Electronics recipe, and would allow another sensible use for this cargo, namely a Glassworks that would have a recipe of Silica+Coal=Goods. This would provide an early era use for Silica (Crystals) In this case I would leave the weird Concrete production chain alone, with maybe the only change being to switch the car type for Concrete to a hopper. I am going from memory here, but I think there is only an open hopper in the game? Ideally Concrete (Cement) would be carried in a covered hopper. Something I am certain of is that carrying it in liquid form in a tanker is completely ridiculous.

Yup. We could always make a covered hopper. Cargo cars are pretty simple, if we can figure out how to assign the right skin to the cargo (which should be possible).

Either Sand or Silica as a cargo name works for me. Would be inclined more towards Sand, since it's the common name and has a wide variety of uses (concrete plant, construction, landscaping, electronics, etc). Having Sand and Rock coming out of a quarry makes sense to me.

[Gumboots]

I agree about Canned Foods not quite fitting things like Cheese as well as PackagedFoods would. Something I did not mention in that previous post is that I checked this morning and the limit on cargo name length (so that they appear correctly in the cargo map) is 11 characters. CannedFoods or Canned Food fits. How does PackageFood sound? Sounds a bit odd to me. Guess I should go look at a Thesaurus to get some ideas, maybe there is a better term we are overlooking.

Ahem. Packed is a word.

[Stoker]

"Package Food" is actually correct English, although I think I would use Packaged Food (also correct English) in most cases when referring to food which is in a package. Packed Food is correct also. It is just a matter of what "sounds" right and/or is commonly used.

I took a look at the alpha cargo list from the 1.06 developers and they list Crystals as being hauled in a covered hopper. That thread is in this section of the forum. Not sure if they thought there was one and it turned out to not be the case. I have to take a look. I personally do not see the need for creating a covered hopper, assuming that there is not currently one in the game. It does not add anything of value to the game.

Something else I noticed in that list is that they gave Concrete an extremely short rot time. Presumably meaning that they meant the product to actually be liquid when shipped, which is completely nutzo. I see changing the rot time to very long and putting the product in some type of hopper- covered or not.

[Gumboots]

"Package Food" is actually correct English, although I think I would use Packaged Food (also correct English) in most cases when referring to food which is in a package. Packed Food is correct also. It is just a matter of what "sounds" right and/or is commonly used.

"Package food" sounds like the active form, as in actually putting stuff into packages. "Packed" fits better for stuff that is already packed.

I personally do not see the need for creating a covered hopper, assuming that there is not currently one in the game. It does not add anything of value to the game.

Yeah but you're completely happy with having broken locos all over the place. We could assign the concrete cargo to a passenger car and you wouldn't care.

Something else I noticed in that list is that they gave Concrete an extremely short rot time. Presumably meaning that they meant the product to actually be liquid when shipped, which is completely nutzo. I see changing the rot time to very long and putting the product in some type of hopper- covered or not.

Yup, it's like you said before. Some people just don't understand the difference between cement and concrete. However, there is quite a market for dry pre-mixed concrete in bags these days. That could be shipped in any box car.

[Stoker]

I will give Packed Food a go. Works for me. As far as what car is used, I would notice if a Passenger car was used for Concrete, but then it would not change gameplay at all. My interest is in fixing functionality issues. The graphics are adequate as is, and no matter how much effort you put into improving them, in the end RT3 is not going to look much different. I suspect you like to think of RT3 as a Simulator rather than a Game. As a Simulator RT3 is woefully inadequate compared to the actual railroad simulators out there these days. I do think the loco fixes you are working on will be appreciated by some players, so packaging them along with what I come up with as far as cargo/building fixes go so they can be installed at the same time makes sense. This is not critical though. If one of us gets done way ahead of the other there is no reason the two things can not be released separately.

I have considered the pre-packaged Concrete mix idea, but then again this is generally not shipped any considerable distance. The economics of shipping dictate that only the high value Cement is worthwhile to be shipped, as aggregate for creating Concrete can be found just about anywhere. Using a Boxcar and considering the product to be bagged Cement (Portland) is a possibility though.

[Gumboots]

I realise the gfx will never match MSTS or whatever, but I enjoy having them better anyway so it's all good. Thing is I like the gameplay of RT3 and I like locos to look as good as they can. Anyway WP&P played around with freight cars quite a bit and reskinned several of them, so doing a covered hopper should be feasible. I'd also thought of reskinning some of the cars that have reversed text on one side, but it's not a high priority.

Oh the other thing I like is having a variety of loco look like a variety of locos. I can instantly tell when something is just a minor reskin of something else. I find it more enjoyable to have a range of models that are fairly accurate (in RT3 terms) to the prototype.

[Wolverine@MSU]

I never paid that much attention to the construction firm, unless it was robbing other industries of deliveries. Then I'd just bulldoze it.

My sentiments (and strategy) exactly!

[nedfumpkin]

Just throwing this out there....

If you change the cargo then you change the game. Cargo is listed alphabetically in the game. So if you rename a cargo and it takes a different place in the list, then all previous maps are toast. Period.

[Stoker]

Just throwing this out there....

If you change the cargo then you change the game. Cargo is listed alphabetically in the game. So if you rename a cargo and it takes a different place in the list, then all previous maps are toast. Period.

I am well aware of how the Cargo functions and have stated several times that none of the existing cargoes will be replaced since this exploration of 1.06 fixes began. The in game names in the .lng of a few Cargoes and in one or two cases some Cargo attributes (car type, rot rate, etc) will be altered, which will not change whether any of the existing maps will function. All of the Cargo changes already mentioned are in fact already completed and I can report that everything functions perfectly. Also, you are incorrect about Cargo being listed alphabetically in the Game Engine call list. They are listed numerically, with the original cargoes being assigned numbers according to the alphabetical order not of the Cargoes, but of the entire asset group (Cargoes, Buildings, Locos, Cars, etc). The Cargoes added in 1.06 are then listed using a different numerical series. As long as these names and call #'s remain, the in game name (in the .lng) and attributes of cargoes can be changed without causing issues relating to how the Game Engine functions.

[Stoker]

Something I discovered last night is that there is indeed a Covered Hopper. Not sure if it was in the original game or added with 1.06, but it is there, and I used it for the Cement "Concrete" cargo.

[nedfumpkin]

Yes, covered hoppers have been in the game all along.

[Gumboots]

Cool. That sorts that then.

[Gumboots]

While I think of it, you might want to look at changing caboose weights in some eras. They get a bit stupid sometimes, being heavier even than some of the freight cars IIRC. My 2c is that a caboose should never be heavier than an express car of the same period, and should probably be slightly lighter.

Also, WP&P's custom cargo cars mod is a really good one and totally backwards compatible with any map. I'd be very much inclined to include that as part of this patch. It changes not just skins but also changeover dates between car types and weights for a better progression. Never seems to break anything.

[AdmiralHalsey]

Also, WP&P's custom cargo cars mod is a really good one and totally backwards compatible with any map..

The moment I saw those I downloaded them. They're a lot better then the stock cars for sure.